Beyond Antagonism: Understanding Iran’s History, Ideology, and Interests

The U.S. foreign policy approach towards Iran has often been based on a simplistic view of the relationship as one of hostility and confrontation. However, this ignores the fact that the two countries have a long and complex history of cooperation and conflict, dating back to the 1950s when the CIA helped overthrow Iran’s democratically elected prime minister. The Iranian Revolution of 1979, which ousted the U.S.-backed shah and established an Islamic republic, marked a turning point in the bilateral relations, leading to a series of crises and clashes, such as the hostage-taking of U.S. embassy staff, the Iran-Iraq War, the nuclear dispute, and the assassination of General Qasem Soleimani. Despite these challenges, there have also been moments of dialogue and diplomacy, such as the 2015 nuclear deal, which was later abandoned by the Trump administration. A comprehensive understanding of U.S.-Iran relations requires a nuanced analysis of Iran’s diverse political, cultural, and strategic interests, as well as its regional and global role. Both America and Iran would benefit from a policy framework that appreciates the multifaceted dynamics at play and seeks to address common concerns and avoid unnecessary escalation.

The Danger of a One-Size-Fits-All Foreign Policy

Firstly, it’s crucial to abandon the one-size-fits-all approach that the U.S. often takes towards its so-called “adversaries” like China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran. Every nation comes with its own historical baggage, cultural complexities, and geopolitical interests. Attempting to lump Iran together with nations like China and Russia is not just an oversimplification; it’s a strategic misstep that can have grave consequences, from inadvertently forging new alliances among these countries to missing opportunities for diplomatic engagement. For example, China, Russia, North Korea and Iran have recently sought support for a coalition to defend the United Nations Charter by pushing back against the use or threat of force and unilateral sanctions by the U.S.. Moreover, China and Russia have also held joint military exercises with Iran and North Korea, signaling their growing cooperation and coordination in the region. These developments pose significant challenges for the U.S. foreign policy and security interests, and call for a more nuanced and pragmatic approach that recognizes the diversity and complexity of each country.

A Brief, Yet Consequential, History

Iran’s roots can be traced back to ancient Persia, a civilization that dominated the region for centuries. Persia was the name given by the Greeks to the land of the Achaemenids, the first Persian Empire that emerged in the 6th century BC. Persia was also used by later dynasties, such as the Sassanians, who ruled until the 7th century AD.

In 1935, Reza Shah Pahlavi, the founder of the Pahlavi dynasty, requested that the international community use the name Iran instead of Persia. Iran is derived from the word Aryana, meaning “land of the Aryans”, an ancient term for the Indo-Iranian peoples. The name change was part of Reza Shah’s modernization and nationalization efforts, as well as a way to assert Iran’s distinct identity from its neighbors.

However, the name change did not erase Iran’s rich and diverse history and culture, which spanned thousands of years and multiple empires. Iran has been influenced by various religions, languages, arts and sciences throughout its history. To conflate Iran with its ancient past is to ignore its complexity and dynamism. It is like analyzing modern America through the lens of the British colonies; it does not offer a complete picture.

The Modern Power Struggles

The modern state of Iran has been shaped by pivotal moments, many of which had direct U.S. involvement. The nationalization of the Iranian oil industry in 1951 by Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh posed a threat to Western interests. It culminated in a coup orchestrated by U.S. and British intelligence services in 1953, embedding a deep-seated mistrust of the West in Iran. The coup restored the power of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, who launched the White Revolution in 1963, an aggressive modernization program that upended the wealth and influence of the traditional landowning classes, altered rural economies, and led to rapid urbanization and Westernization. The White Revolution also included social and legal reforms that furthered the emancipation and enfranchisement of women, as well as the nationalization of forests and pastures. However, the reforms were not evenly distributed, and they disrupted the role of the landowners and clerics in rural areas, creating discontent among many segments of society. The subsequent 1979 Iranian Revolution was a popular uprising that resulted in the overthrow of the monarchy on February 11, 1979, and led to the establishment of an Islamic republic headed by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, a religious cleric who had headed one of the rebel factions. Khomeini had been exiled from Iran in 1964 for his vocal opposition to the White Revolution and his criticism of the shah’s authoritarian rule. He returned to Iran on February 1, 1979, following an invitation by the government, and was greeted by millions of Iranians who supported his vision of an Islamic government. The revolution also involved various ideologies and groups, such as secularists, Islamists, Marxists, and nationalists, who had previously come together in the Constitutional Revolution of 1905–11. The revolution was characterized by mass demonstrations, strikes, civil disobedience, guerrilla warfare, and clashes between loyalist forces and rebels. The revolution also marked a turning point in Iran’s foreign policy, as it severed its ties with the West and aligned itself with other anti-imperialist movements in the region and beyond.

The Iran-Iraq War, which lasted from 1980 to 1988, was a brutal and costly conflict that had a lasting impact on the region and the world. The war was triggered by Iraq’s invasion of Iran, motivated by territorial disputes, ideological differences, and Saddam Hussein’s ambition to dominate the Persian Gulf. The war resulted in hundreds of thousands of casualties, massive economic losses, environmental damage, and widespread human rights violations.

The war also revealed Iran’s resilience and resourcefulness in the face of a superior enemy. Despite being isolated and sanctioned by most of the international community, Iran managed to mobilize its population, mobilize its religious ideology, and develop its indigenous military capabilities. Iran also introduced its hybrid warfare strategy, which combined conventional and unconventional military tactics to counter Iraq’s advantages in weaponry and air power. Iran’s hybrid warfare strategy included:

• The use of irregular forces, such as the Basij militia and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), to conduct guerrilla operations, human wave attacks, and suicide missions.
• The use of proxies and allies, such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Kurdish rebels in Iraq, to expand the war front and create pressure on Iraq’s borders and interests.
• The use of asymmetric weapons, such as mines, missiles, drones, speedboats, and improvised explosive devices (IEDs), to target Iraq’s oil infrastructure, naval vessels, and urban centers.
• The use of information operations, such as propaganda, disinformation, and psychological warfare, to undermine Iraq’s morale, legitimacy, and cohesion.

Iran’s hybrid warfare strategy proved to be effective in inflicting damage on Iraq and deterring further aggression. It also influenced Iran’s military doctrine and posture for the future. Iran learned from its experience that it could not rely on conventional deterrence or external support to defend its interests and sovereignty. It also learned that it could exploit its enemies’ vulnerabilities and achieve disproportionate effects by using a mix of conventional and unconventional methods. Iran’s hybrid warfare strategy has been imprinted in its military culture and has been applied in various conflicts and crises since then, such as in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Persian Gulf. This strategy poses a significant challenge for the U.S. and its allies in the region, as it makes the prospect of a conventional war with Iran not just unlikely but potentially disastrous for both sides.

The Present-Day Quandary

Iran is facing multiple challenges that threaten its stability and security. The country is under severe economic pressure due to U.S. sanctions that have crippled its oil exports and access to international banking. The sanctions have also hampered Iran’s ability to import essential goods, such as food and medicine, leading to shortages and inflation. The economic hardship has sparked widespread protests and discontent among the Iranian people, who are also frustrated with the political system and the lack of civil liberties.

Iran’s regional influence is also under strain, as it is involved in several conflicts and proxy wars in the Middle East. Iran supports the Houthi rebels in Yemen, who are fighting against a Saudi-led coalition backed by the U.S.. Iran also supports the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad, who is facing a civil war and a Turkish intervention. Iran also has allies and militias in Iraq, Lebanon, and Palestine, who often clash with U.S. and Israeli interests. Iran’s involvement in these conflicts has drawn criticism and condemnation from the international community, as well as increased tensions with its regional rivals, such as Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the United Arab Emirates.

Iran’s public health situation is also dire, as it is one of the worst-hit countries by the COVID-19 pandemic. According to the World Health Organization, Iran has reported more than 7.6 million cases and over 146,000 deaths as of October 23, 2023. The pandemic has overwhelmed Iran’s health system, which was already suffering from a lack of resources and equipment due to sanctions. The pandemic has also exposed the weaknesses and failures of Iran’s government, which has been accused of mismanagement, cover-up, and politicization of the crisis. Iran’s leaders have blamed the U.S. for imposing sanctions that prevent them from obtaining vaccines and medical supplies, while also claiming that the virus is part of a biological warfare against them.

The Stalemate of Diplomacy

The JCPOA or Iran’s nuclear deal is an international agreement that was reached in 2015 between Iran and the P5+1 (China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States), along with the European Union. The deal aimed to limit Iran’s nuclear activities in exchange for the lifting of sanctions imposed by the UN, the EU and the US. The deal was endorsed by the UN Security Council Resolution 2231 and was implemented in January 2016.

However, the deal faced a major setback in May 2018 when the US under President Trump announced its withdrawal from the agreement and reimposed sanctions on Iran. This decision was criticized by the other parties to the deal and by many international actors, who argued that the deal was working and that Iran was complying with its obligations as verified by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

In response to the US withdrawal and sanctions, Iran gradually reduced its compliance with the deal and resumed some of its nuclear activities that were restricted under the agreement. Iran also demanded that the remaining parties to the deal provide economic relief and protect its interests from US sanctions.

The situation reached a critical point in January 2020 when Iran announced that it would no longer abide by any of the limits imposed by the deal, following the US assassination of General Qasem Soleimani, a prominent Iranian military commander. Since then, Iran has increased its uranium enrichment levels and stockpiles, installed advanced centrifuges, and reduced its cooperation with the IAEA.

The election of President Biden in November 2020 raised hopes for a possible revival of the deal, as he had pledged to rejoin the agreement if Iran returned to full compliance. However, the process of restoring the deal has been complicated by several factors, such as mutual distrust, domestic politics, regional tensions, and legal hurdles.

Negotiations between the remaining participants in the JCPOA and the US resumed in April 2021 in Vienna, with the aim of finding a way to synchronize the steps that both sides need to take to restore the deal. The talks have made some progress but have also faced challenges and delays. The main issues include how to verify Iran’s compliance, how to sequence and coordinate sanctions relief, how to address Iran’s nuclear advances since 2018, and how to deal with other matters of concern such as Iran’s missile program and regional role.

The JCPOA is widely regarded as a landmark achievement of multilateral diplomacy and a key pillar of global non-proliferation regime. Despite its difficulties and uncertainties, it remains the best available option to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and to ease tensions in the Middle East. Therefore, it is essential for all parties involved to demonstrate political will and flexibility to overcome the obstacles and preserve the deal.

Recommendations for a Nuanced Approach

Iran’s complex history, its ideological foundation, and its strategic objectives are often misunderstood or ignored by the U.S. Army and the broader policy-making apparatus. A nuanced policy would acknowledge Iran’s role as a regional power with legitimate security interests, while also holding Iran accountable for its destabilizing activities and nuclear ambitions. Ignorance and misconceptions can lead to dangerous miscalculations that could escalate into a costly and unnecessary war. Understanding Iran is not just about avoiding conflict; it’s about devising a smart strategy that leverages Iran’s weaknesses and vulnerabilities, exploits its internal divisions, and engages its moderate forces. Such a strategy would also take into account the intricacies of a nation that has a rich and diverse culture, a vibrant and educated population, and a long history of cooperation and conflict with the U.S. and its allies.

The U.S. faces a complex and delicate task of managing its relations with Iran, a country that has been at odds with the West for over four decades. To achieve this, the U.S. needs to adopt a nuanced and pragmatic approach that acknowledges Iran’s history, culture, and interests, as well as the challenges and opportunities for cooperation. This means developing a comprehensive, long-term strategy that goes beyond mere containment to engagement on areas of mutual concern, such as nuclear nonproliferation, regional stability, counterterrorism, and humanitarian issues. At the same time, the U.S. needs to be firm and clear on its expectations and red lines, and to hold Iran accountable for its actions that undermine global security and human rights. Only by pursuing such a balanced and realistic policy can the U.S. hope to break the cycle of mistrust and antagonism that has characterized U.S.-Iran relations for decades.